Short answer. A person entitled to compel partition files a complaint setting forth the nature and extent of their title, an adequate description of the real estate to be partitioned, and joining as defendants all other persons who have an interest in the property.
What the law says
A person having the right to compel the partition of real estate may do so as provided in this Rule, setting forth in his complaint the nature and extent of his title and an adequate description of the real estate of which partition is demanded and joining as defendants all other persons interested in the property.
Rule 69, Section 1 — Complaint in action for partition of real estate. Read the full provision →
Who may bring the action
The Rule is available to a person who has the right to compel the partition of real estate — typically a co-owner — who may file a complaint to have that right enforced through the court, rather than being left to negotiate a division with the other owners on their own. This makes partition a matter of right for a co-owner who wants out of the co-ownership, not something the other owners can simply refuse to entertain, so long as the plaintiff can establish the title the complaint alleges. A person with no interest in the property at all has no standing to invoke this Rule.
What the complaint has to establish
The complaint must set forth the nature and extent of the plaintiff's title to the property, which establishes the legal basis for demanding partition in the first place, along with an adequate description of the real estate that is the subject of the demand. Without these two elements, the court and the defendants have no way to test whether the plaintiff actually has a right to partition or to identify precisely what property the action concerns, so both are treated as basic pleading requirements rather than optional detail. A vague or incomplete description can delay the case while the parties sort out exactly what land is at stake.
Joining everyone with an interest
The complaint must also join as defendants all other persons interested in the property, so that every co-owner or interest-holder is brought into the same proceeding. This ensures the eventual partition judgment binds everyone with a stake in the property rather than leaving some interests unresolved. Failing to implead an interested party risks leaving that person's share outside the judgment entirely, which can force a second proceeding later just to settle what should have been resolved the first time, and can even open the earlier judgment to challenge by the person left out.
Related provisions
- Rule 69, Section 1 — Complaint in action for partition of real estate
- Rule 69, Section 2 — Order for partition, and partition by agreement thereunder
- Rule 69, Section 4 — Oath and duties of commissioners